Viewpoint: There are plenty of reasons not to mandate body cameras

The state of Wisconsin is fortunate. We have a high level of professional law enforcement services. The standards set by the state, the training and the expectations of each law enforcement agency sets the bar that most applicants can’t meet. We utilize extensive background investigations, which are instrumental in identifying the best possible candidates.

That is not to say there is no good use for body cameras, because there most certainly is.

The number one reason would be to justify the actions of our deputies. The camera validates an officer’s account of what happened, and captures confessions, both that lead to plea agreements (a cost savings to the taxpayer). It is a valuable piece of evidence for the prosecution and is extremely useful for citizen complaints against officers. More often than not, video clears officers of exaggerated complaints against them.

Along with the good reasons for body cameras on police officers, there are plenty of good reasons not to have body cameras.

The biggest reason is the foreseen future of video in order to win a conviction. We have already heard from a juror claiming that a video would have made a difference in her decision.

This poses a couple of big issues. First and foremost, the integrity of our police officers will no longer be enough to convict law breakers. Video will be required in order to convict suspects. The fact that video will not always be available may allow bad guys to escape conviction and increase the potential that they commit more crimes.

Storage of all the digital data from every officer answering numerous calls each day, some calls taking hours, would require enormous amounts of storage. Additionally, agencies (such as ourselves) would be looking at hiring additional staff for open records requests. It is very time consuming to record and search such requests.

This is not to mention the privacy of those individuals captured on police video that aren’t involved in the incident the officer is recording. Will we have to blur out the faces of those in the video that have been requested via open records request?

If there was a community outcry for our deputies to wear the camera, I would be more inclined to consider spending taxpayer money to purchase cameras. If I had a problem deputy, I could use the camera to address behaviors or for dismissal. However, I currently have neither.

There are some key issues pointed out earlier in this article that needs to be addressed before I jump on any band wagon.